What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

I've asked you 4 times now to give us an example of something we can use to CHECK YOUR METHODOLOGY against.

---

And you can ask me 4 more times, and my answer will be the same. You first have to tell me how do we agree on what is confirmed design, and what is not. BY criteria is CSI, your's is not. So now what?

quote:

---

You've ducked and dodged.

---

How is my question of how do we agree on a confirmation ducking and dodging?

quote:

---

You want to use CSI to determine if it's designed. Fine. Use it. Use NCIS, Use Law & Order for all I care.

---

I can't becaue you don't accept it as a valid design inference. So we are stuck.

quote:

---

Now, answer the question:

​

YES or NO, CAN you give us an example of something which was designed where no one has ANY idea how it was created so we can check you claims about life AGAINST it?

​

OR, are you arguing that the ONLY thing that CSI can be used to predict is life created by the wizard AND the ONLY thing we don't need mechanisms for is life created by the wizard?

​

That's a pretty odd coincidence.

---

CSI detects design in genereal, not just in living organisms.

quote:

---

The fact that you call this quantity that you can't actually quantify "genetic entropy" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with actual entropy as dealt with in the laws of thermodynamics. Although you have not come close to defining it, I'm fairly sure that when you do it won't be measured in joules per kelvin.

---

The fact that all mater tends to disorders is equally well applied to the genome. I se absolutely no reason why a genome would be special. It tends to disorder, not order. I'm simply extrapolating from a well known natural law to a particular object.

quote:

---

You are wrong. Only a small proportion of people have ever studied thermodynamics. I happen to be one of them.

---

That's great. Now you can tell us all about it. Well than, please do tell us why in the world is the genome the only entety in the universe that does not follow the 2nd law.

quote:

---

I am, in fact, quite sure that nothing in genetics implies the possibility of constructing a fridge without a power source.

---

By saying there is not genetic entropy, yes, you are claiming just that. Because that means you are sayign that the 2nd law, does nto applie to the genome.

quote:

---

What he means by genetic entropy is the accumulation of deleterious mutations.

---

No. To be precise, he means the degradation of biological functions. Mostly casued by nearly neutral mutations, than deleterious mutations, and last by some beneficial mutations. And I know what I'm talking about because I actually have the book. Do you?

quote:

---

And yet we don't see it happening except in artificially small populations.

---

Of course we do, but on a smaller scale.

quote:

---

But it was never Sanford's.

---

I have the book, I knwo what he is talking about.

quote:

---

No, Smooth Operator. It is not "obvious" that the accumulation of beneficial mutations will drive a species to extinction.

---

Tell that to all the extinct species around the world. Why do you think they are extinct? Becasue evolution works as you think it does, or becasue it doesn't?

quote:

---

Until you are capable of quantifying genetic entropy, that statement is no more meaningful than saying that beneficial mutations increase the wibbly-wobbly-woo.

​

What we do know, however, is that by definition beneficial mutations increase the fitness of the organism.

---

Anyone who know anything in biology knows how to measure the amount of genetic information. Any biological function encoded in the genome is measured in bits. Any event that decreases the original function, is the increase in entropy.

quote:

---

But of course he does not, which is why, as I pointed out, you can't quote him saying one thing supporting creationist tripe.

---

He is an evolutionist, not a creationist. But not a darwinist. Do you think that the word "Evolution" EQUALS "darwinian evolution"? Well, you see, no it doesn't. There are many different theories of how evolution works. And you are the one who is claiming that the darwinian one is the true one. Kimura disagreed with that.

quote:

---

Looking back, I think that it is a curious human nature, that if a certain doctrine is constantly being spoken of favorably by the majority, endorsed by top authorities in their books and taught in classes, then a belief is gradually built up in one's mind, eventually becoming the guiding principle and the basis of value judgement. At any rate, this was the time when the panselectionist or 'neo-Darwinian' position was most secure in the history of biology: the heyday of the traditional 'synthetic theory' of evolution.

---

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho37.htm

quote:

---

I see that Percy has already called you on this.

​

Put up or shut up.

---

Don't mind if I do.EvC Forum: Message Peek

quote:

---

By purifying selection.

---

Great. Now show me some evidence. Where does this happen in real life, and how good is it.

quote:

---

We observe that life does in fact still exist after billions of years.

---

1.) You know life is billions of years old becasue...?2.) Even if it was it would just mean that the mechanism that keep life going are efficient enough to keep it going for such a long time. But that doesn't mena the entropy is not building up. Life could be areound for lot longer than that, for 10 billion years, 20 billion years, or 100 or more billion years, and than vanish in a genetic meltdown. The time life is going to go on depends on the efficiency of selection. But however efficient it is, it inevitably has to experience geentic meltdown. The only way it wouldn't is if selection was infinitely efficient. Which we know is not.

quote:

---

Then you have an inordinately long-winded way of showing how little you care.

---

Well, that's just me. Get used to it.

quote:

---

Apparently you've backpedaled on your backpedaling.

​

Consistency is the last thing I should ever accuse you of.

---

Or a more simple explanation would be that I never backpedaled in the first palce.

quote:

---

They cause heritable changes. They are an evolutionary mechanism.

---

No. Heritable change is not an evolutionary mechanism. That is, not for the kind of evolution is are implying. You are championing darwinian evolution. Which can not take it's evidence from non-rndom mutations.

quote:

---

No it isn't. It's like saying that the lineage has undergone genetic changes which gave them a new and adaptive function. Which it has.

---

But that is false becasue it didn't happen. Regulating an already existing gene is not evolution. Tuning an already existing function is not gaining a new function. The original function was to digest citrate. The bacteria is still doing that, but now in the presence of oxygen. ALL, and I do mean ALL the needed mechanisms that bacteria needed was already there. The bacteria gained nothing new to do this job.

quote:

---

If you are really unable to argue with me, then don't. Making up rubbish about televisions and arguing with that is no substitute.

---

I had to show you an analogy, to explain to you how confused you are. You are confusing adding totally new traits and mechanisms with simple tuning of already existing ones.

quote:

---

I'll stick with the claim that we don't know if the mutated version had any function or not.

---

But what we clearly do know, is that the one that it had is now lost.

quote:

---

In other words you didn't use it, That, after all, is the major error in Dembski's calculations that I have already pointed out.

---

You simply said that Dembski didn't follow his own steps. Which it totally false.

quote:

---

As I have already shown your calculation was incorrect, and you have continually tried to get me to do the work for you. Thus your assertion is false - you have not done the necessary calculations.

---

And than I told you fine, I'll do the new calculation. You just need to tell me what exactly do you want.

quote:

---

You didn't say that at all. You said that D* contains E - which is correct (it is required by the DELIM condition). And because E is only a subset of D* you must - as Dembski says calculate the probability of D*, because the probability of E is irrelevant.

---

And I did, becasue D* is the specified pattern in question. It's the "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" consisting of 50 proteins.

quote:

---

Any person who actually understands the issues should be able to see that by overestimating the information you run the risk of false positives. Indeed your method makes it very easy.

​

For instance given a sequence of 501 coin tosses we could use the specifications "more heads than tails" or "more tails than heads". Since the probability of the sequence itself is below the Universal Probability Bound using your method we should conclude that it is designed. Using Dembski's method we see that D* has a probability of 0.5 (for either specification) and inferring design is idiotic.

---

But that's not a detachable patternt. Becasue 499 coins could be heads, so could 498, 400, 333 etc... You need to get something like a Fibonacci sequence to infer design.

quote:

---

However, it is clearly not the same as saying that the information was input at the creation of the first bacterium, which is what you are saying now

---

Well it had to be put in at some point in time, and some point is space. Where that was we do not know. But I'm not claiming that it is being inputed right now. I'm claiming that all desgin we see now is a copy of teh original one.

quote:

---

Of course that is incorrect. What I stated was that you can only usefully apply Dembski's methods to the points where the intelligent designer actually gets involved. It cannot be applied to cases where all the work is done by unintelligent processes. You responded by claiming that under that rule we could never find design, implying that the intelligent designers never get involved. (If they do get involved, then your counter-argument completely fails).

---

Why should we not be able to detect design in afully automated process? The information had to be inputed at some point in time.

quote:

---

Of course you are completely wrong - as well as contradicting your own arguments. No, it is not true that all mutations are held at fixed frequencies by natural selection. Some spread, some die out - whether by natural selection or by genetic drift.

---

ARRRGH!!!!Yes, all of them. If mutations suck so much, than their effective frequency is zero. If it's a bit better than it's 1%, if it's bit more better than it's 2% etc. With the best possible mutation being in 100% of the population.So now tell me, if we know that this applies to frequencies of alleles for hair color, and eye color, do you not agree that this alos applies to frequencies of sickle cell?

quote:

---

At this point I must point out the importance of context. I stated that the sickle-cell was held at fixed frequencies by natural selection. You responded that the same happened to all mutations.

---

Whatever it is kept in a certain frequency by is irrelevant to me. The fact is that just like any other mutation it is kept at a certain frequency.

quote:

---

In other words you still have insufficient evidence to make a valid argument. Although do go on looking into the development of antibiotic resistance. You might find some information that surprises you (although probably not on a creationist site).

---

So no matter how much examples I provide you are not convinced. Tell me, why should I bother with you anymore?

quote:

---

There is little need to be concerned about byproducts when the net effect is beneficial (and therefore - by definition - contributing to the survival of the species).

---

There is a lot of concernt becasue the byproducts are the ones that are casueing geentic entropy.

quote:

---

The average numbers also tell less than the complete story. Do not forget that beneficial mutations tend to spread and deleterious mutations to disappear - and the greater the effect of the mutation, the stronger the tendency.

---

Umm... not. There is noise during selection which maeks your view of evolution primitive and childish. The efficiency of selection is not infinite, it actually sucks very much. There fore, beneficial mutations do not spread, and deleterious do nto get removed all the time.

quote:

---

No, I don't. And if you had it would be far better to link to the explanation instead of simply posting a bare link. However, since the link did not support your claim, it hardly matters. The Spiegelman Monster did not suffer from genetic entropy at all - it did not go extinct, it simply became more efficient at replication. So your chosen example disproves your point - beneficial mutations and natural selection completely defeated genetic entropy.

---

Actually, it shows that for the duration of experiment the mutations casued the chains to get shorter and shorter. And those are the ones that spread more and more. The longer ones died out faster. So the population of RNA chains was losing their complexity, and becoming simpler not more complex. So how in the world do you think this process could have ever evolved those chains into people? Genetic entropy at it's best.

quote:

---

Once again you use an example which only someone with no idea what they are talking about would use to show a loss of efficiency. Binding to streptomycin is not a function of the ribosome, binding to the ribosome is rather a function of streptomycin. So it is not necessarily a loss of efficiency for the ribosome to change its structure to reduce the binding affinity to streptomycin. You have to use a crazy sort of logic to portray a mutation which has no effect other than to reduce the affinity between the ribosome and streptomycin as a loss of function/efficiency for the ribosome.

---

The point is that any kind of binding affinity, when it gets degraded, it follows that the specificity gets reduced. Also causing the reduction of information, becasue the the reduction of specificity is reduction of one component of complex SPECIFIED information.

quote:

---

The reason this is such a dumb example is that there are perfectly good examples of streptomycin resistance mutations which have genuinely deleterious side effects, including the production of strains which were essentially streptomycin dependent

---

And why exactly is your example better? Both are a loss of information, so however you look at it they are fine examples.

quote:

---

Merely meaning that, I do have examples of csi (nucleotide arrangement), and I had already given them as an example.

---

Yet what you wrote - taken in context - did not mean that at all. It meant that you had provided examples of Dembski's CSI. Which is completely untrue.Indeed, if your current response is accurate, in your actual reply you should have denied using Dembski's CSI and offered some argument that eliminated natural patterns from your definition of CSI. Neither of which you did.

quote:

---

Again I don't either align myself with nor do I distance myself from Dembski or any other ID scientist.

---

Dembski is not a scientist.

quote:

---

If my terms bare a striking resemblance to or are taken from something I may or may not have read or heard one of them say, I don't know or really care. I know when I use an English word, I always mean it in the sense that it is most often used in the English speaking population.

---

So far as I am aware the "majority usage" would be Dembski's since Dembski is the one who formulated and popularised the specific term and the acronym. And as I read on it becomes clear that your usage of CSI is an idiosyncratic usage that I have never seen before - it is neither of the two common definitions.

quote:

---

So just for the record let me clarify what I mean when I say Complex Specified Information. I am referring to anything of a highly intricate nature that is arranged in a specific order to serve the sole purpose of relaying instructions to another system, through the activation of one possibility to the exclusion of several others.

---

Then - as I have pointed out- you have no sound basis for ruling out natural patterns. Indeed to make that claim you must beg the question by assuming that evolution is false.

quote:

---

Author mentioned that you were looking for me to give a method by which one can recognize csi as opposed to purely natural phenomenon. Like some kind of meter that we can plug into any situation and see the needle swing left for natural or right for intelligent. First we have to understand that intelligence is the ability to make a choice and that information from that intelligence is the choice of activation of at least one possibility to the exclusion of several others. And that activation must be recognized to mean something by both the transmitter and the receiver. And finally for a third party (humans) to detect that information, we also have to be able to understand the meaning of the conditions that were activated. I mentioned logs on a beach, the other day, arranged to read, "Marooned... please send help." If I were from China and did not speak a word of English, the logs would appear to be arranged in purely a random order to me. So detecting csi is not as simple as having a meter we can hook up, but it is detectable nonetheless. And as I said before, we have detected a high degree of csi in the DNA code of all living organisms.

---

This seems to be a concept of information, since neither complexity nor specification play any role in the definition. Indeed, it seems of be a concept of semantic information, assuming intelligence in the receiver and transmitter. Or am I mistaken in thinking that the choice is supposed to be made by the transmitter, and that transmitter and receiver are supposed to understand the meaning of message ? After raising the issue of choice you fail to explain exactly where it fits into the definition.I will also note that this is completely different from the definition of information that you copied from wikipedia.In fact, it seems that you are using Dembski's terminology to make Gitt's arguments - and Gitt simply refers to information, not CSI.So at this point, it is clear that you are NOT using the majority definition of CSI. Your actual definition is unclear, and it is far from clear that CSI as you mean it is present in DNA.

quote:

---

But what we clearly do know, is that the one that it had is now lost.

---

Which, of course, I did not argue against.

quote:

---

You simply said that Dembski didn't follow his own steps. Which it totally false.

---

Simply denying the facts is hardly a road to productive discussion. If I am incorrect and Dembski did calculate the probability of P(D*) you need to demonstrate that.

quote:

---

And than I told you fine, I'll do the new calculation. You just need to tell me what exactly do you want.

---

I already did that. You need to calculate the number of proteins that are no more than 20% different from each of the 50 used in the E Coli flagellum.\

quote:

---

And I did, becasue D* is the specified pattern in question. It's the "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" consisting of 50 proteins.

---

No. D* is the specification considered as an event. So it is ANY "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller" however many - or few - proteins are involved.

quote:

---

But that's not a detachable patternt. Becasue 499 coins could be heads, so could 498, 400, 333 etc... You need to get something like a Fibonacci sequence to infer design.

---

Of course, the Caputo case involved nothing more than the Democrats taking first position on the ballot far more often than expected. There was no other pattern to the results.In fact your objection has nothing to do with detachability at all. All you are saying is that D* is much wider than E. But that is the reason WHY we need to use P(D*) - because P(D*) CAN be much higher than P(E) and thus the SPECIFIED information may be only a tiny fraction of the whole.

quote:

---

Well it had to be put in at some point in time, and some point is space. Where that was we do not know. But I'm not claiming that it is being inputed right now. I'm claiming that all desgin we see now is a copy of teh original one.

---

Which rules out your claim:

quote:

---

Why should we not be able to detect design in afully automated process? The information had to be inputed at some point in time.

---

Because Dembski's method relies on detecting the input of information from a designer (as opposed to natural sources). Let me be clear, I am claiming that the operation of a fully automated process cannot be used to reliably detect design because it has a high probability of producing its output. It is certainly possible that the process itself might be designed and if it is, that you might - in principle - be able to use Dembski's method to detect it with reasonable reliability. (While Dembski's method has a number of problems, if the practical difficulties could be overcome, it might be usable as a decent argument for design - when applied correctly).

quote:

---

ARRRGH!!!!
Yes, all of them. If mutations suck so much, than their effective frequency is zero. If it's a bit better than it's 1%, if it's bit more better than it's 2% etc. With the best possible mutation being in 100% of the population.

​

So now tell me, if we know that this applies to frequencies of alleles for hair color, and eye color, do you not agree that this alos applies to frequencies of sickle cell?

---

So what you mean is that the alleles for hair colour and eye colour are neutral and the frequencies aren't changing much through selection or drift, and ask why that isn't the case for sickle-cell. The answer is that sickle-cell trait (heterozygous for sickle-cel) is quite strongly advantageous in malarial areas and mildly deleterious elsewhere, while the homozygous state is strongly deleterious everywhere.

quote:

---

So no matter how much examples I provide you are not convinced. Tell me, why should I bother with you anymore?

---

If you only want to talk to people who are convinced by your claims regardless of how poor your evidence is, then I suggest that you go to a creationist-run forum. I've already told you what sort of evidence you would need to produce. And any reasonable person would agree.

quote:

---

Umm... not. There is noise during selection which maeks your view of evolution primitive and childish. The efficiency of selection is not infinite, it actually sucks very much. There fore, beneficial mutations do not spread, and deleterious do nto get removed all the time.

---

Obviously you have not understood the position I am putting forward at all. I have not said that natural selection is perfect or that there is no noise. What I have said is that beneficial mutations have a greater chance of spreading - and the more beneficial they are the better their chances. And that deleterious mutations have a lower chance of spreading - and the more deleterious they are, the less their chances (in the extreme case of causing sterility or death before reproductive maturity, NO chance). This fact has to be taken into consideration, rather than simply shrugging it off.

quote:

---

Actually, it shows that for the duration of experiment the mutations casued the chains to get shorter and shorter. And those are the ones that spread more and more. The longer ones died out faster. So the population of RNA chains was losing their complexity, and becoming simpler not more complex. So how in the world do you think this process could have ever evolved those chains into people? Genetic entropy at it's best.

---

No, it is the exact opposite of genetic entropy. Genetic entropy supposedly degrades the fitness of the population until it is forced into extinction. In the Spiegelman monster case, mutations improved the population radically, to the point where the "monster" drove all other populations into extinction.

Only if you use your own crazy version of it, rather than one which has any relevance to actual biological function of the changing molecule! Alowing that CSI is represented in this system the specification surely resides with the genetic sequences allowing the production of Streptomycin with a structure allowing it to bind to ribosomal elements, not the other way around. You might argue that the change in the ribosomal element effectively reduces the information content of the streptomycin biosynthesis sequences, but I don't see how you can argue that it represents a loss of information for the ribosomal sequence.My example is better because it relates to actual deleterious functional effects to the ribosome, which the various informational metrics involving functionality we have discussed would probably all identify as a loss of functional information. Of course there is a counter-argument that we need to be able to calculate the potential gain of functional information that the resistance phenotype represents in order to determine if the informational change has led to a net loss or gain of information.TTFN,WK

Hi Smooth Operator,Productive discussion on technical topics requires that people be willing to provide information and explain their position. Your approach seems to be to claim that the information and explanations have already been provided. If that is the case and you're really done arguing your position, then please stop posting to this thread.I'm also at a loss to understand how you can think messages like this one are acceptable after what I posted to you concerning your responses to Dr Adequate and PaulK. If responses like this are not acceptable when responding to them, then obviously they're not acceptable when responding to anybody. The goal of EvC Forum is to provide a venue where discussions actually get somewhere, and messages like this work against that goal.In case you'd like to continue discussion I provide this feedback: Nuggin is requesting that you provide an example of the application of *your* methodology. If you would like to continue discussion then since this seems like a reasonable request it would be appreciated if you would do so.Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Smooth Operator in message 102This type of claim seems provable, is it not? Sequence of an ancestor and current of any given species and a genetic loss should be apparent. The larger the gap from ancestor to present species should reveal a larger genetic loss. This sounds like a simple case of adding up the "bits" and Genetic Entropy becomes quite obvious. Edited by Vacate, : Added message number to the link.

Choice is required in the origin of the information. However if an intelligent source forms a system that mechanically transmits the information, and a receiver that mechanically receives the information and utilizes it, then choice is not necessary with in the two mechanical systems. That was what I meant when I used the Wikipedia article which said, "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind." However choice can still be detected as the originator of the information by observing the direct interactions between the mechanical transmitter and receiver, even if the systems have self replicated and we are only able to observe the ancestors of the original systems. We can still recognize specific patterns being utilized to create specific conditions, to the exclusion of several others, that are received and utilized for a specific function. All other systems that we have ever observed in the whole of human history, that produce specified information, required an ability to make a choice. Therefore we can logically conclude that a choice was required (and detected) to form the specified information in DNA. Choice is the main ingredient necessary for intelligence. Intelligence is what is necessary to produce complex specified information. If we want to detect intelligence we have to detect the ability to choose. One way to detect that is by looking for a condition that was activated to the exclusion of several other conditions, in such a way that the condition has a significant meaning to both the transmitter and the receiver. It does not matter what medium is used to transmit the information as long as it is understood by the transmitter and the receiver to mean the same thing. When we hear someone belch we normally don't recognize it as the transmission of information. However I have a buddy who can belch the alphabet. If information can be transmitted in belches, I have no problem saying it can be transmitted within organic material such as nucleotides. In this case we have a mechanical transmission, a medium, and a reception taking place, of csi, which is evidence for choice/intelligence.

quote:

---

Choice is required in the origin of the information. However if an intelligent source forms a system that mechanically transmits the information, and a receiver that mechanically receives the information and utilizes it, then choice is not necessary with in the two mechanical systems. That was what I meant when I used the Wikipedia article which said, "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns.

---

So, just to be clear, are you including a requirement for an intelligent choice in your definition of information ? Because that is nowhere in the Wikipedia definition you quoted.

quote:

---

We can still recognize specific patterns being utilized to create specific conditions, to the exclusion of several others, that are received and utilized for a specific function. All other systems that we have ever observed in the whole of human history, that produce specified information, required an ability to make a choice. Therefore we can logically conclude that a choice was required (and detected) to form the specified information in DNA.

---

However, such an inference is very weak because it pretty much ignores everything else we know about DNA and instead uses a comparison with quite different systems - all of them human created.In fact we know that the DNA "instructions" can and do change with no sign of a designer intervening. Even antibiotic resistance can be seen as a specification, as can the colour change of the Peppered Moth. Yet we see no sign of any intelligent choice in the development of these.

quote:

---

Choice is the main ingredient necessary for intelligence. Intelligence is what is necessary to produce complex specified information.

---

This does not explain what role choice plays in the definition. Are you asserting that your definition of complex specified origination requires that it originates with an intelligent choice ? If not, just where does it fit in ?Until we have settled your definition (which currently looks like Gitt information and not like any common formulation of CSI) we cannot say that DNA contains CSI or that intelligence is required to produce it.

Hi Smooth Operator,I'm requesting that henceforward you respond to the arguments being made rather than slicing people's messages up into short fragments and responding to each fragment. You also usually respond in rhetorical fashion, and you should instead begin responding with information and explanations. Allow me to be specific about a few instances. In effect you're saying, "I have the book, you'll just have to take my word for it," and this is just another instance of you refusing to provide information. The only information on the Internet people are able to find does not mention beneficial mutations as a contributor to increasing genetic entropy. Since Sanford's book contains this missing information, and since you are in possession of the book, please provide a relevant excerpt or two. This is a rhetorical response, an expression of skepticism with no information. Please explain how beneficial mutations might drive a species to extinction. I want you to exert more effort staying on topic. These unsupported claims about Kimura and about evolution will now stop in this thread. Kimura accepted descent with modification and natural selection, which is Darwin's theory. If you wish to argue otherwise then take it to the threads discussing Kimura or propose a new thread. The original question was how you measure genetic information. Message 102 doesn't really explain the approach you yourself use, other than an informal one that implies changes in information content from observation of changes in function. The point people are trying to discuss with you is how you measure (not guestimate) information when determining changes in genetic entropy, and they can't do that if you keep saying, "I already explained that," especially when you haven't.I can spare no more time moderating you. Keep in mind that those who become too big a drain on moderator resources tend to begin drawing longer and longer suspensions just because of concern for our limited moderator resources. Your return to this thread has forced me to recuse myself from participation in a thread where I was enjoying the discussion, and I'm not happy about this, and am especially not happy about your expression of apparent enjoyment of my misery in Message 556.If I don't see renewed effort at constructively communicating your position then suspension could result.Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Brad H,I'm going to continue to try to clarify for you what I think people are looking for. I don't recall seeing these examples, and I expect others may also be having trouble recalling them. Could you please either cut-n-paste these examples into a new message, or provide links to the old messages where you provided them, including enough information to locate them within your messages. People are already aware that you believe CSI is detectable. What they are asking you is how. People are already aware that you believe CSI has already been detected in living organisms. What they are asking you for is specifics. Which organisms, what was the method, and how was the method applied?Please, no replies to this message in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I guess it is equally false whatever you're talking about.If you really know damn-all about thermodynamics, I suggest that you study thermodynamics.Stop me if I'm going to fast for you. As I have told you, there is nothing in genetics, least of all the existence of the genome, which implies that one can construct a refrigerator without a power source. No I am not.Listen carefully.Your fantasy of "genetic entropy", which you cannot define, has nothing to do with the theory of thermodynamics. If you called it "genetic weight", it would have nothing to do with the theory of gravity. If you called it "genetic electrical charge", it would have nothing to do with Maxwell's equations.The fact that you have chosen to describe your vague and nebulous fantasy in terms that have real meaning in a real science does not magically mean that your daydream has anything to do with that science. I know that you are not telling the truth, because I have read what Sanford has to say.Your error is a different error from Sanford's error. He may be completely wrong --- in fact, let's not beat about the bush, he is --- but he is nowhere near being as hopelessly, ludicrously wrong as you are. Of course we don't. This is why you are unable to produce any evidence for your fantasies. Then why can you not quote Sanford saying the same thing as you are?Oh, oh, I know. Because his trash is different from your trash. Because it works exactly like I think it does. Which is why there are species that are not extinct. So, you're back to a definition of genetic entropy whereby the increase of this quantity, which you are unable to measure, is not opposed to evolution and is in fact an inevitable consequence of it. If you tell me falsehoods about what I am claiming, you will not succeed in deceiving me. Like Kimura, I agree that there were things that Darwin didn't know. And, like Kimura, I think that creationism is bullshit. I wouldn't mind if you did.Put up or shut up. It's so good that the "genetic meltdown" in Sanford's fantasies does not in fact happen. ... of this stuff called "evidence" Well, if you want to fantasize that one day this genetic meltdown will take place, feel free. But this fantasy does not contradict the actual history of life on Earth. This explanation, while it might be "simple", or even downright retarded, is not congruent with the facts. You inadvertently said something true.Heritable change is not an "evolutionary mechanism". Heritable change is evolution. Any mechanism by which it takes place is an evolutionary mechanism.Incidentally, do you have any evidence for your claim that the particular evolutionary mechanism involved was a transposon, or is this just something you made up? If you wish to retreat into hysterical denial about plain facts in biology, then may I suggest that this board is perhaps the very worst place for you to do so?The bacteria couldn't do something. Then they could, as a result of a genetic change. This is evolution. You had to talk gibberish to pretend that I was confused. I am not confused. This is why you couldn't argue with what I actually said, but had to argue with some incoherent trash about televisions which you made up in your head. Because as you well know, you're not going to get anywhere arguing with people about genetics, a subject of which you are pitifully ignorant.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, I am saying that (a) intelligence is required for the origination of information, and (b) it is not necessary for the continued transmission of information. And that does fit the Wiki def. The nucleotides precise arrangement influence development of the organism. One pattern influences the development of another with out the need for intelligence to be present. The changes we "know" that occur in the DNA are just as you said, changes with no sign of a designer. But they are not changes that can explain its origin as a whole to begin with. You mention atibiotic resistance. What actually transpired in these cases is the antibiotic has removed most of the bacterial population except for a few hardy individuals who have a recessive resistant gene. This gene heretofore not employed and not expressed in the population, now lets the survivors suddenly flourish in an atmosphere that has exterminated their relatives. This situation will often reverse over time as a new medicine kills the first survivors. But the point to this scenario is that the bacteria maneuver only with the genes already in the gene pool, or genetic combination's normally appearing after conjugation, and not with true mutations. Likewise in the peppered moth situation, natural selection maneuvers back and forth between already existing alleles in the gene pool population.These are not cases where an altogether new gene has been "written" by random processes into the DNA code. These adaptive features can only explain the survival of the species, but not the existence of the species. In fact they would even fit well into a creationist model as a "design" feature for the purpose of survival.